Contraception Mandate Outrages Religious Groups...

[Joshua_me]

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20120203/D9SLQB900.html


^ This is a curious, and seemingly ill-timed move from our POTUS.

It DOES move him slightly left of the "centrist" that he usually is, but I'm not sure it's the wisest move at this time.

====================

Employers that fail to provide health insurance coverage under the federal law could be fined $2,000 per employee per year. The bishops' domestic anti-poverty agency, Catholic Charities, says it employs 70,000 people nationwide. The fine for the University of Notre Dame, the most prominent Catholic school in the country, could be in the millions of dollars.

=======================


Thoughts ?

 

[kallipolis]

This quote from the captioned article, sums up my feelings understanding that the right to contraception devices is available to all who support contraception. On matters that are conscience driven I see no good reason for such enforcement:

"It's not about preventing women from buying anything themselves, but telling the church what it has to buy, and the potential for that to go further," said Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, representing some 600 hospitals.

Keehan's support for the passage of the Obama health care overhaul was critical in the face of intense opposition by the U.S. bishops. She now says the narrowness of the religious exemption in the birth control mandate "has jolted us." She pledged to use a one-year grace period the administration has provided to "pursue a correction."

 

[swmjck]

Many women who are religious, perhaps a majority, use contraception. The religious leaders are fighting a losing battle on this one.

 

[justdra]

Can someone explain what lead to religious entities who make money or hire people to not be taxed like any other organization? A lot of that is how mega church leaders are worth millions, some won't take a salary, they take a "donation".

 

[jackoroe]

Many women who are religious, perhaps a majority, use contraception. The religious leaders are fighting a losing battle on this one.

Whether individuals choose freely to use contraception isn't at issue. It's about the heavy boot of the Federal government being planted firmly on the neck of religious organizations. This will do nothing but raise the ire of people who cherish their religious freedom. If Obama was smart, he'd ask for legislation to rescind this provision of Obamacare.

If not, he'll pay a price.

 

[swmjck]

Whether individuals choose freely to use contraception isn't at issue. It's about the heavy boot of the Federal government being planted firmly on the neck of religious organizations. This will do nothing but raise the ire of people who cherish their religious freedom. If Obama was smart, he'd ask for legislation to rescind this provision of Obamacare.

If not, he'll pay a price.

I just don't think there are that many people who really care about this except the religious leaders. Many people are Catholic for instance and the Catholic Church "in their infinite wisdom" opposes contraception. The flock however, practice contraception quite a bit. I just don't think it is that big of deal to most people. However, I could be wrong.

 

[Kulindahr]

Both these are irrelevant.

Many women who are religious, perhaps a majority, use contraception. The religious leaders are fighting a losing battle on this one.

Let's make a parallel issue: a law requiring all gay men to have a wife and reproduce. It's on the very same level, a threat to people's self-identity. It and the existing provision say, "We don't give a shit if you find it repulsive and against your conscience, we're the government and we're here to [STRIKE]help[/STRIKE] command you".

Can someone explain what lead to religious entities who make money or hire people to not be taxed like any other organization? A lot of that is how mega church leaders are worth millions, some won't take a salary, they take a "donation".

It's called separation of church and state.

Doesn't matter if your job is religious, you still pay taxes. And unless you work in a position your religion declares to be a religious vocation, you pay Social Security tax, too -- and if you don't, you have to show an alternative retirement plan.

"Donations" count as income if they're regular and come because of the person's job, too. Churches have learned to be very careful on that because the IRS has come down on some with a very heavy hand.

 

[Kulindahr]

To the question:

this is ludicrous. It's like they think the Reformation never happened -- because what the Reformation was about at root was forcing people to act against their conscience. That wasn't right when medieval popes did it, and it isn't right now.

Obama's good at executive orders -- he should order his underlings to change the definition.

 

[Jack Springer]

Forcing churches who provide medical coverage to their employees to pay for abortions?

Whatever happened to separation of church and state.

I hope the person who is picked to run again this guy in November will make this a huge part of the campaign.

Wander what else is the heathcare act -- at least we know that Pelosi has no idea.

We do know that Obama fully supports late term abortions to the extreme. Sucking out the brain of a healthy baby as it is being born is about the more barbaric thing a person can imagine. But like he said last week -- it will give his daughters a fair, equal footing with men.

 

[palemale]

The whole thing is bullshit. When Catholic institutions receive public money to perform services for states and cities, they don't have a problem with health insurance that requires them to provide contraception. In NYC, Catholic agencies that receive city money must recognize gay marriages, provide contraception, I think their employees even have access to abortions through their health insurance. There were Catholic institutions years ago in NYC that recognized domestic partnerships for gay and lesbian, but not hetero, couples because the heteros could get married and gays and lesbians couldn't.

It's all politics and economics. Because some Catholic institutions will now have to provide contraception in their health insurance where they did not have to in the past, they're raising a stink. If there was some theological prohibition, why have some Catholic institutions been providing contraception for years?

 

[Kulindahr]

Forcing churches who provide medical coverage to their employees to pay for abortions?

. . . .

We do know that Obama fully supports late term abortions to the extreme.

Please don't change the subject -- this is about contraception.

 

[Kulindahr]

The whole thing is bullshit. When Catholic institutions receive public money to perform services for states and cities, they don't have a problem with health insurance that requires them to provide contraception. In NYC, Catholic agencies that receive city money must recognize gay marriages, provide contraception, I think their employees even have access to abortions through their health insurance. There were Catholic institutions years ago in NYC that recognized domestic partnerships for gay and lesbian, but not hetero, couples because the heteros could get married and gays and lesbians couldn't.

It's all politics and economics. Because some Catholic institutions will now have to provide contraception in their health insurance where they did not have to in the past, they're raising a stink. If there was some theological prohibition, why have some Catholic institutions been providing contraception for years?

If we want to get theological....

The US bishops should tell the Pope to stuff it, informing him that following the Bible their position is that it's time to stop being fruitful and multiplying because we've gone far beyond filling the earth and God expects us to be responsible caretakers of the planet, not just baby factories to churn out people like cordwood.

 

[paatreides]

Nope. Don't think it's a wise decision. If we're to have a proper separation of Church and State, then the State cannot be forcing the Church into things they find against their beliefs. It's really that simple.

 

[palemale]

Nope. Don't think it's a wise decision. If we're to have a proper separation of Church and State, then the State cannot be forcing the Church into things they find against their beliefs. It's really that simple.

In 1997, Iraqi immigrants in Nebraska married off their 13 and 14 year old daughters to a 28 and a 34 year old man. The state prosecuted the father and the two men, both of whom "consummated" the marriage. This marriage was sanctioned by the religion of the family and the two grooms. Was it wrong for the state to prosecute these men for acts that were permitted and encouraged by their religion? http://jummahcrew.tripod.com/baghdad.htm

 

[Jack Springer]

Please don't change the subject -- this is about contraception.

The new mandate is about both contraception and abortion.

 

[Kulindahr]

The new mandate is about both contraception and abortion.

You really ought to read the article before chiming in. See, it says:

There is no mandate to cover abortions.

 

[Kulindahr]

In 1997, Iraqi immigrants in Nebraska married off their 13 and 14 year old daughters to a 28 and a 34 year old man. The state prosecuted the father and the two men, both of whom "consummated" the marriage. This marriage was sanctioned by the religion of the family and the two grooms. Was it wrong for the state to prosecute these men for acts that were permitted and encouraged by their religion? http://jummahcrew.tripod.com/baghdad.htm

I can see two significant differences between this and the regulations being discussed.

 

[bankside]

In Canadian law there is a fairly clear legal distinction between clergy and lay employees. The lay employees also have freedom of conscience, which is not subject to the whims of the employer's moralising, providing they do their jobs.

That's why a religious institution can prevent a clergy member from getting married to anyone but is obliged to offer spousal benefits to the caretaker, even if she is in a same-sex marriage.

The same principle can easily apply here: if the employee in question is not the purveyor of dogma then the employer has no business regulating access to medical services.

 

[opinterph]

The new mandate is about both contraception and abortion.

… the article … says:

There is no mandate to cover abortions.

It is my understanding that the final rule requires health plans to cover all FDA-approved contraceptives, including Plan B emergency contraceptives, such as the “morning-after” pill – which some people contend is essentially the same as abortion. That contention is disputed by columnist Akiba Solomon in an article published last summer in Colorlines.

Ella delays ovulation and blocks sperm from fertilizing an egg for up to five days after unprotected sex. Plan B One Step is a big dose of levonorgestrel, a hormone used in many birth control pills. It won’t work if you’re already pregnant. According to the anti-choice logic, wouldn’t, like, menstruation and masturbation count as abortions? [Link]

 

[Just_Believe18]

Whether individuals choose freely to use contraception isn't at issue. It's about the heavy boot of the Federal government being planted firmly on the neck of religious organizations. This will do nothing but raise the ire of people who cherish their religious freedom. If Obama was smart, he'd ask for legislation to rescind this provision of Obamacare.

If not, he'll pay a price.

The problem, however, is that these religious organizations are providing an essential medical service through insurances, clinics, and hospitals that are affiliated with their religion. There is a level of care that is required through federal and state laws in how emergency care is given and prescription medications are authorized. For example, if the Jehovah's Witnesses had built a hospital and refused to save a patient's life through a blood transfusion, they would be in trouble with the government. We do not and should not deny care for others regardless of religious viewpoints. Offering contraception through insurance policies is just one more overdue service that should be provided to all citizens who seek medical care.

Even from a moral standpoint, offering contraception prevents more abortions from happening. Resistance to this federal mandate is not out of religious principle; rather it is is a draconic viewpoint that enforces an unrealistic generalization that couples and married couples should only be having sex for procreation. In other words, a husband should only ejaculate into his wife's vagina with the intent of getting her pregnant. You claim this is a federal encroachment on the beliefs of religious people; however, I would contend this is an issue of social morality trumping the demagoguery of religious bigots.